Go to page

Go to page

Large parts of Europe had none or extremely peripheral part in the colonization process. (In fact even in those who did the colonization and the spoils thereof involved minorities.) So trying to tar "Europeans" for something they had no part in is insulting and ignorant. What's next, should the Vietnamnese apologize for the Mongols sacking of Baghdad, Being fellow Far Eastern and all?

Considering Sweden sold cannons to everyone in bulk, and slave-irons was a profitable product line of it's 17th and 18th c. metallurgical industry it could be included. Then again on that basis pretty much all of central Europe, which was the larger European hub of mining and metal-working.

Regardless of directly trading slaves, or maintaining overseas colonies, all of Europe was, directly or indirectly, plugged into the global market system early modern Europe created and maintained, of which slaves and colonies was just one kind of modality.

The question is why should anyone apologize for the things done in the past by the people we never knew and only read in the books? Or a question from another side. Why is it so hard to apologize for the mistakes of others? If it helps the others have peace of mind?

The question is why should anyone apologize for the things done in the past by the people we never knew and only read in the books? Or a question from another side. Why is it so hard to apologize for the mistakes of others? If it helps the others have peace of mind?

Apologies can run an entire range of options. Expressions of regret for past actions of individuals or entities isn't that hard. On the other hand they can very easily be dismissed as insufficient, insincere, whatever – all it takes is an attitude of not accepting the apology.

Which has happened in international politics. Even to the point where apologies, even damages payments, have been accepted decades ago, but get reopened since the apology is dismissed and the compensation deemed insufficient.

Part of the complication is that there is a number of "legal persons", from state actors to corporations, who are still around, still active, and who were clearly implicated in these past actions. And some people today still have the task of representing these.

Apologies can run an entire range of options. Expressions of regret for past actions of individuals or entities isn't that hard. On the other hand they can very easily be dismissed as insufficient, insincere, whatever – all it takes is an attitude of not accepting the apology.

Which has happened in international politics. Even to the point where apologies, even damages payments, have been accepted decades ago, but get reopened since the apology is dismissed and the compensation deemed insufficient.

Part of the complication is that there is a number of "legal persons", from state actors to corporations, who are still around, still active, and who were clearly implicated in these past actions. And some people today still have the task of representing these.

Good point. But I guess it also comes from a psychological aspect. Right? I am talking about the events that happened a couple of generations ago. And people are requesting an apology. I do not see a problem in admitting the mistakes that are proven by History and facts. I also do not see the need for an apology for bad things that happened ages ( generations) ago. Unless it still continues to this day.

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.